As Pakistans army chief, Field Marshal emerged as a key intermediary in negotiations tied to the escalating Iran crisis, Washington once again found itself relying on a country that American officials have spent decades accusing of playing both sides in the war on terror.
Munir has emerged as a key intermediary in negotiations aimed at preventing renewed conflict with Iran, placing Pakistan â despite decades of accusations involving Taliban safe havens, nuclear proliferation and Osama bin Laden â back at the center of U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East.
The latest negotiations have again exposed one of the biggest contradictions in U.S. foreign policy: Washington keeps turning to Pakistan even after years of tension, distrust and accusations that elements of the countrys security establishment supported militant groups fighting American troops.
Pakistans renewed diplomatic role has come under heightened scrutiny â and exposed divisions among Republicans â after allegations that Iranian military aircraft may have been moved into Pakistani territory during the recent conflict, claims Islamabad has denied.
“I dont trust Pakistan as far as I can throw them,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said May 12. “If they actually have Iranian aircraft parked in Pakistan bases to protect Iranian military assets, that tells me maybe we should be looking for somebody else to mediate.”
Trump, however, publicly praised Pakistans leadership the same day.
“Theyre great,” Trump told reporters May 12. “I think the Pakistanis have been great. The field marshal and the prime minister of Pakistan have been absolutely great.”
“Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir have been helpful mediators, and the United States is grateful for Pakistans efforts to bring an end to the conflict. When Irans nuclear threat is removed for good, the entire world will be safer and more stable,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales told Fox News Digital in a statement.Â
Pakistan has long occupied an uneasy place in American foreign policy.
The nuclear-armed country borders both Iran and Afghanistan, maintains deep ties across the regions security landscape and has historically been viewed by U.S. officials as too strategically important to fully isolate.
Even critics who accuse Pakistan of double-dealing acknowledge Washington has struggled to disengage from Islamabad because of the countrys nuclear arsenal, geographic position and influence over regional militant networks.
But distrust between Washington and Islamabad deepened dramatically after U.S. forces killed bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in 2011 â a military town located near the countrys premier military academy.
“The fact that we had to do that operation without Pakistani support speaks volumes as to how much we trusted them,” Bill Roggio, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and editor of the Long War Journal, told Fox News Digital.
Critics and former U.S. officials long questioned whether Pakistani intelligence could have been unaware of bin Ladens presence in Abbottabad, though Pakistan has repeatedly denied knowingly sheltering him.
Analysts say Pakistans military establishment also spent years viewing Afghanistan through the lens of its rivalry with India, seeing a Taliban-friendly government in Kabul as a form of strategic leverage against Indian influence in the region.
“They view Afghanistan as strategic depth,” Roggio said.
Analysts say Pakistans security establishment historically differentiated between militant groups targeting Pakistan itself and groups viewed as useful against India or in Afghanistan â a strategy critics argue led Islamabad to tolerate or maintain ties with some Taliban-linked and anti-India groups even while cooperating with U.S. counterterrorism operations after 9/11.
Pakistani officials also have argued the country paid a heavy price for aligning wit
